fix emulation of L1T ZDC EtSums

[missirol]

PR description:

#43214 (comment) shows that the emulation of the L1T ZDC EtSums is currently inaccurate, due to

• (a) the relevant iEt values of ZDC trigger primitives (TPs) not being restricted (or capped) to a 10-bit integer, and
• (b) the ZDC-iEtSums TPs ($|i\eta| = 42$, $i\phi = 99$) occasionally missing from the unpacked HCAL digis.

The root cause of (b) is not understood yet. This PR fixes (a), and works around (b) by re-computing the relevant iEtSums values from the other (non-iEtSum) ZDC TPs, i.e. those with $|i\eta| = 42$ and $i\phi \neq 99$.

The PR includes a few additional changes, as detailed below (see the list of commits).

• Cleanup of the L1Trigger/L1TZDC package, removing several files which are unused and, imho, not really useful anymore.
• Fixes for the emulation of the ZDC L1T EtSums as described above, plus renaming the L1TZDC{Producer,Analyzer} plugins to L1TZDCEtSums{Producer,Analyzer} for clarity.
• Addition of L1TEtSumsPrinter, a simple EDAnalyzer to print out the content of l1t:EtSum objects.
• Addition of a unit test for L1TZDCEtSumsProducer, including a check on the values of the emulated L1T ZDC EtSums for a few events of 2024 PbPb data.

PR validation:

Looking at the logs of the new unit test, one can verify that the emulated L1T ZDC EtSums ("l1tZDCEtSumsPrinter2") are now in agreement with the L1T ZDC EtSums unpacked from the L1-uGT data ("l1tZDCEtSumsPrinter1"). For more context, see #43214 (comment) and subsequent comments.

If this PR is a backport, please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR. If this PR will be backported, please specify to which release cycle the backport is meant for:

If merged, this change will be backported at least to the CMSSW_15_1_X cycle, since it is relevant to the 2025 PbPb run (although not strictly necessary for data-taking purposes).

[cmsbuild]

cms-bot internal usage

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-48963/46130

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @missirol for master.

It involves the following packages:

• DQM/Integration (dqm)
• L1Trigger/L1TCalorimeter (l1)
• L1Trigger/L1TZDC (l1)

@BenjaminRS, @antoniovagnerini, @cmsbuild, @ctarricone, @gabrielmscampos, @nothingface0, @quinnanm, @rseidita can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Martin-Grunewald, @batinkov, @francescobrivio, @mmusich, @threus this is something you requested to watch as well.
@ftenchini, @mandrenguyen, @sextonkennedy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[mmusich]

@cmsbuild, please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Size: This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-8d8b4f/48231/summary.html
COMMIT: f25c106
CMSSW: CMSSW_16_0_X_2025-09-21-2300/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/48963/48231/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

There are some workflows for which there are errors in the baseline:
2024.0050001 step 1
The results for the comparisons for these workflows could be incomplete
This means most likely that the IB is having errors in the relvals.The error does NOT come from this pull request

Summary:

• You potentially added 2 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 50
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3851005
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 3
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3850982
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 20
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 49 files compared)
• Checked 214 log files, 184 edm output root files, 50 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[nothingface0]

@mmusich do the tests require the

test parameters:
- addpkg = DQM/Integration

for testing the DQM online clients?

[mmusich]

for testing the DQM online clients?

unless they were already tested because the package got checked out by the bot because of dependencies, yes.

[nothingface0]

for testing the DQM online clients?

unless they were already tested because the package got checked out by the bot because of dependencies, yes.

Right! My brain just skipped this part.

[mmusich]

Right! My brain just skipped this part.

np. In the case at hand I can't check because cmssdt is down at the moment :(